Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > LOL.
>> >
>> > backinfullforce commented (quoting smarty EASTERBROOK):
>> >
>> > ------
>> > "Copyright law gives authors *a right* to charge more, so that they can
>> > recover their fixed costs ( and thus promote innovation ), but they do
>> > *not require* authors to charge more. You hear that, Williams? You are
>> > not required to charge more once a piece of your intellectual property
>> > exists.
>> > ------
>> >
>> > And so it is perfectly okay for copyleft ("free as in freedom") to
>> > suppress *a right* given by copyright law
>>
>> Since when does copyright law secure a right to create and
>> redistribute derivative works without asking the original author?
>
> That's not a right that EASTERBROOK is talking about, retard.
Last time I looked, the case _did_ involve copyright.
> Copyleft requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for
> derivative works.
Or negotiate different license terms. Without copyleft, you _only_
have the choice of negotiating different license terms.
> "Copyright law gives authors a right to charge more".
Sure, for their own works. But copyright law does not give a right to
distribute or charge at all for works that are derivatives from
material copyrighted by others.
Really, one should think that you should have understood this by now,
what with all your quotations of case law.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
